Review CXXIII - Love

Review 123
Love (2015)

Hey guys! I was all ready to rock 'n' roll with a couple of reviews before 2016, but unfortunately, I caught an absolutely awful gastro. Consequently, I only have an unedited review for you guys. I'll be sure to update it in 2016 and provide maybe a few more reviews before I return back to school. Happy New Year until then!

Ahh, 2015 is coming to a close, and I must say, it was a pretty shitty year. I guess I thought continuing my Gaspar Noé saga would be appropriate to thus close the New Year, not to mention he had a new film out this year. This one's called Love and it stars a bunch of random people you have never heard of in your life. Let's get to it!

Remember how much I hated Enter the Void? ... Yeah, I still desperately hate that movie, but Love somehow has less plot and makes less sense than Enter the Void. You'd think Gaspar Noé would up his game and maybe improve over time, but I guess he just gets worse. So why does Love suck such balls? Because it does just that: suck balls. That is, this is a freaking porn movie. An extra long porn movie with an attempt at culture, but it's porn nonetheless. We'll go from beginning to end with this shit fest, so strap in for a spoiler-induced review.

The film starts off with some announcement about putting on your 3D glasses. ... Okay. I'm not sure why this was included on my DVD copy of the movie, but whatever. What's the first scene? A man and woman jacking each other off. Great stuff. We get a full view of the woman, with the guy partially covered by the woman, although we still get a great shot of his dick. This lasts I think about three minutes. Then we cut to the same guy and a woman sleeping in the same bed. An alarm goes off... And then we get shitty, shitty monologue from the guy. This guy has a son, but immediately we're told that he feels "trapped" and a bunch of other shit typical of a guy that got a girl pregnant because he's a douche. Then he checks his voicemail after giving the baby to his mother, the woman he was laying in bed with. "Hello, this is Electra's mom. I haven't heard from her in two months - call me back," the message goes, with the woman possessing a thick French accent. Okay, before we go anywhere, let's point out the obviousness of the name Electra. Hm, that name is pretty uncommon... Could it be a reference to the Electra complex? Seems a bit stretched, but I think maybe it could be that. But don't worry, the obviousness continues when we see Murphy's law pop up and absorb the screen. "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." Huh! Our protagonist's name is Murphy! I'm sure it's a coincidence, though. *rolls eyes* I love it when films take out any ambiguity from its depths so you walk away from the film without any questions. Well, I do have one: WHY AM I STILL WATCHING THIS?

We find out through a series of flashbacks that Murphy and Electra were going out and were so "madly in love". The two confess that sleeping with a blonde chick would up their relationship, and, oh look, the new neighbour is blonde and conveniently young (jailbait young)! After finding out she's pro-choice (plot anyone?) and enjoys smoking up (idiot anyone?), they invite her over. Ensue a threesome because everyone's a whore. However, one weekend when Electra's gone, Murphy goes over to the chick's house, has sex with her, but the condom breaks. And thus baby nine months later. But apparently Electra gets very angry and breaks up with him! Oh no :(( Electra, no :(( You're not that much of a whore :(( Anyway, so Murphy is furious, and tries to get her back, but it fails of course, and we cut back to present time. The film just jumps around, so I'll just discuss some scenes from here on out about the film that worth mentioning for rage.

Somewhere in the middle of the film - how I made it more than one minute in, I don't know - our lovely protagonist, Murphy, is talking to Electra and some whore at a party. "What is the number one goal in life?" he asks. The whore yells out, "Love!" Satisfied with the answer, Murphy then asks the second goal in life. "Sex!" the whore giggles, ready to pounce on his dee for no fathomable reason. Murphy excitedly agrees. "I want to make a film about sexual love. I've never seen a film like that!" As you can see, Gaspar Noé decided breaking-not-breaking the fourth wall would be a good idea, so we have Murphy basically telling us that this film is new, it's creative, it's grand. But I've also never seen a film focusing solely on decapitating babies, but does that mean it should exist? No. Not all ideas are good ideas, so I'm glad some freaking contemporary film student came out with some idea that hasn't been touched before. We're screwed. Anyway, that girl gets the dee from Murphy in the bathroom (why why why), but Electra finds out immediately as they are super loud about it, and, quite understandably, is super pissed off. Murphy claims she's sleeping with her ex (played by Gaspar Noé - he's damn short compared to Electra), and they argue in a taxi. "Calmez-vous!" the taxi driver tells them (it was bad acting). What follows is two aggressive sex scenes, one of them in a club. I don't know if they're connected, but to me, they're connected. I don't know when he says it, but Murphy claims his dick does not "think" and keeps "screwing things up". Apparently it does, but it doesn't because this guy CONTINUOUSLY CHEATS on his girlfriend and sex follows. Cheating is INEXCUSABLE. But this guy and film treat it as nothing. Sure, Electra gets pissed off, but they have mad sex after that. This girl must have the lowest self-confidence in the world to go back with a guy like this. Then again, she does hard drugs, and her mom finds them in one shot. That is, an IDIOT. And that scene was weird too, but eff it. What is this film?

I skipped through the end because there were too many sex scenes, too much random anger because everyone is an idiot, and too much melodrama from a guy who deserves castration. The film ends with Murphy taking a bath and crying to his baby, telling the baby that, "Life isn't easy :'((" Life isn't easy, but all these problems are brought on by HIMSELF. And then Electra is in the bath, they hug, and then the credits roll.

I missed some things, but I can sum it up: sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, and sex. We even got transvestite sex after Electra decides it would help them or something. I'm surprised there were no horses. And, just like in Enter the Void, we get a 3D penis-in-vagina scene. Great, just what I needed.

What about the acting? As was the case with Enter the Void, Love had absolutely SHIT acting. The acting was complete GARBAGE, except during the sex scenes, but it was actual sex, so I don't see how they could screw (heh) that up. Murphy was shit, Electra was god awful, the blonde chick was shit, Gaspar Noé was shit, every single character that said anything said it in such a robotic way, I felt like cutting my wrists. A film doesn't need the best acting in the world to be a good film, BUT DAMN, IT SHOULD BE VIEWABLE.

Was there anything redeemable about Love? No. It was atrocious. Even the name drives me up the wall. The film was not about love. The film didn't portray a story of love through sex. It was a shitty porno disguised as art so if your mom caught you fapping to it, you could tell her it was an "art" film. But it's not. I saw some reviewers saying there was more to this film than meets the eye. There isn't. Watch a porno and you'll get the same experience. Honestly, why do films like this get MADE? This one was even premiered at the Cannes festival. HOW. It was also produced by the same guy who did La vie d'Adèle. Why am I not surprised?

Sex should be an intimate show of affection, but Love and other films like it ruin every notion we should have about sex. I'm tired of garbage being labelled as "artsy" when it's really just bad. Don't watch it. I am beyond furious with this crap and beyond furious that this film wasn't burned at the reel at its first premier. God DAMN it.

Review CXXII - The Lobster

Review 122
The Lobster (2015)

Christmas is a time for family, for friends... It's a time where we take the time to be with those we love the most and try and think of a meaningful gift for them. So of course I went with Yorgos Lanthimos's The Lobster for the holiday season... Yeah, didn't I review Dogtooth not that long ago and say I didn't really get the film? Well, since The Lobster was an English film and I thought the plot was interesting, I was actually planning on watching it eventually. My boyfriend happened upon it recently, and with my words of encouragement, he was down. Thus, so was I. This one stars Colin Farrell, Rachel Weisz, Ben Whishaw, Angeliki Papoulia (Dogtooth!), and Olivia Colman (whaaaat Hot Fuzz whaaat), among others.

David (Colin Farrell) lives in a society where companionship is a must. After realising he doesn't love his wife, he checks himself into a "love" hotel. In this hotel, you must find love in 45 days, or you are turned into an animal of your choice. Will David find love or turn into his chosen animal, the lobster?

Slight spoilers here. Honestly, the plot sums up only part of the film. It extends to so much more in the two hours it runs. It's like Martyrs in a way, where the film starts as one thing and turns into something else. I mean, I guess the film isn't as different as From Dusk Till Dawn let's say, but anyway, you get it.

The Lobster is a fine piece of cinema. I was a bit worried it would leave me feeling... odd and not sure, as was the case with Dogtooth, but in the end, with the film revolving around a global idea encompassing the world now, as well as the explanations from a particularly observant viewer, I got this one. But let's look into what I got from the movie. Here are maybe bigger spoilers for the movie in terms of plot analysis, so you have been warned. Basically, the film revolves around a more egocentric view of love. The limping man (Ben Whishaw) explains that his distinct characteristic is his limp. His dead wife had what? A limp. The man with the lisp (John C. Reilly) has his defining characteristic - a lisp. There's a woman with a frequent nosebleed (Jessica Barden), and a completely heartless/sadistic woman (Angeliki Papoulia). We never know them beyond this one characteristic. And this is what they search for in their partner. They are self-absorbed individuals who can only love those who are closest to them. The limping man, knowing he will be transformed in a short amount of time, fakes nosebleeds by bashing his head against walls, and ends up being paired up the nosebleed woman. A love based on a lie in order to not be alone - doesn't seem so unlikely, does it? Or at least, it doesn't from my experience. David also attempts to fake being heartless as he claims he has always been attracted to short-haired women and women with accents. However, the lie is quickly noticed after a particularly gruesome scene (akin to Dogtooth's cat scene), though he manages to escape the authorities. This is the way the society is made up, and if your defining characteristic sets you apart from the rest, you are transformed.

However, we have the opposite side of the equation with the loners. The loners, led by Léa Seydoux's character, have completely rejected this culture. They aren't allowed to have partners and must dig a grave and not risk getting the others in trouble. They cannot listen to music other than techno and must do it alone. They conduct missions where they attempt to ruin partners' lives. David joins them after escaping from the hotel. Of course, we see that there is a flaw in their being as well since completely rejecting love isn't a solution. It will only lead to their demise as the only way they can continue is to bring in others. However, David finds love in the group when he meets a woman who is short-sighted (Rachel Weisz) just as he is. They are found out eventually by the leader, and while the leader attempts to break them apart, we see that the two of them break the mold. They make sacrifices for the other, meaning they reject the programmed society they live in, something the leader could not have expected. They are the only ones who have truly found what love is. Of course, the ending is cringe worthy just as Dogtooth was, but it's a happy ending.

So why do I find The Lobster particularly meaningful? Love and marriage are not as they used to be. It is true that we get along best with those who are most similar to us, but we also have to be ready to make sacrifices and accept the differences we possess amongst each other. Nowadays, we are in a more "throw-away" culture where, if we have a problem with a partner, divorce is an option. Divorce is not bad if a partner is particular abusive, or if you are truly unhappy and have made an effort, but so often an effort is not made. It is hard for me to speak since I have never been married, but marriage isn't always easy and it's a learning experience. It seems wrong to me that we have a joining in love, have children in the middle, and then decide it isn't worth it. The Lobster shows this effortlessness with egotistical love. However, The Lobster shows us that the alternative, completely rejecting marriage is not a healthy option either. The movie presents an exaggerated portrayal of the current state of affairs, and it's something I have often discussed with my boyfriend. And thus, The Lobster has hung around with me. Even now, I still feel some heart strings tugging. Might I also say the acting was awkwardly adorable and just wonderful?

The Lobster is definitely unconventional, but totally worth a watch. Maybe not the most Christmas-y, but still worth a watch before the new year rears its ugly head, hehe. Merry Christmas guys!

Review CXXI - Сталкер

Review 121
Stalker (1979)

I'm back, guys! Exams are over, I got two days of rest, and now my crazy work schedule will begin for Christmas! Fun times, eh? I honestly don't mind all that much - anything to get a break from studying every night. Anyway, I'm back (for now), but I haven't had any time to watch any holiday films... I'll try and watch one, though I can't make any guarantees. Instead I'm here to share with you a classic film, a Russian film, that I had the pleasure of watching a few weeks ago right after regular classes finished. I present you Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker, or Сталкер as it is known in Russian.

The "Zone" is an area forbidden to laypeople after the disappearance of a group of military men. However, the "Stalker" (Aleksandr Kaidanovsky) agrees to take in two curious men, the "Professor" (Nikolai Grinko) and the "Writer" (Anatoli Solonitsyn), who wish to visit the "Room", an area in the "Zone" that apparently grants a selected wish from whoever steps inside it.

I really, really liked this film to start off with. I was told it was long, it was quiet, and it was Russian. But guys, the time didn't seem long at all to me. I felt the two hours and forty minutes were justified and there was never a dull moment. But I'm just gushing over this thing and not reviewing it. Shall we back track a bit?

Stalker was based, very loosely apparently, on a novel titled Roadside Picnic by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, a novel depicted as one of the greatest science fiction novels ever written (I'm getting this from Wikipedia because I never read the novel, so I can't comment). However, if you've played S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or read/played Metro 2033, you'll start the film and start hmmming it and seeing super close similarities. Indeed, both games refer to stalkers, and even in the novel of Metro 2033, they point out that the word "stalker" is a foreign word to their mouths since it's English (I loved Metro 2033, though the ending was kind of meh). So already, if you really love those games, check out Stalker from 1979. However, it is not exactly the same, so it's probably closer to Roadside Picnic than it is Stalker... I digress! Long story short, I had read Metro 2033 prior to watching Stalker, had enjoyed myself with S.T.A.L.K.E.R., so I was going to like Stalker.

As I said, Stalker is different because it doesn't deal with alien life and creatures birthed through hideous radioactive sewage. While radioactive explosions are a topic of the film, something predating the Chernobyl incident, it also focuses on the journey of man through faith and expectation. I can't say I one hundred percent got the film... I tried reading an analysis of the film, but it went on for so long that I ended up skimming it (reference). I read some shorter ones (here and here), and I basically got the conclusion that Stalker was not a religious piece, a humanitarian piece, a life piece: it was really what the viewer saw in it, with a definite message of keeping faith and harbouring love. This is based on the words of the director. This works throughout the film, but again, the film is long, so there is so much to say about it. I think Andrei Tarkovsky really wanted to raise issues in Russia at the time given that he wasn't happy with the censorship that was occurring at the time. Yet, the ending with the little girl makes you wonder if the whole thing could actually have happened, or if it was just a post-traumatic experience on the "Stalker"'s behalf. ... I really can't offer anything new. Read those articles guys, if you're interested

However, if you aren't the type to really give a shit about meaning, the film will not be lost of you. The reason? The shots are really, really beautiful. The film starts off in a crisp coffee-brown-black-white super contrasting palette that turns into the real world once our protagonists enter the "Zone" (I keep thinking the "void" for some reason). It was jarring, but it worked so well. Honestly, those opening scenes were absolutely beautiful, and it only continued from there. The "Zone" had beautiful, beautiful cinematography as well. I particularly loved the tunnel and the last shot in the "Zone" with the water and stone. If you want a beautiful film, Stalker will not disappoint. It is so, so beautiful. Thank you, Andrei Tarkovsky and Alexander Knyazhinsky!

The 1979 classic really deserves its status. It is long, but honestly, I thought every moment was worth the time. The acting was great (the "Writer" was a beautiful man, hehe, and the wife of the "Stalker" (Alisa Freindlich) was great), the cinematography was astounding (common of classic Russian films ;) ), the story and plot interesting, the meaning, ambiguous yet deep, the film, great. I can't wait to check out Solaris!

Review CXX - They Live

Review 120
They Live (1988)

I've been wanting to write a review for the month of November, but I haven't even watched any movies this whole month. I ended up going on an anime spree (and by spree, I mean I watched three shows, one of which had only seven minute episodes), but I didn't really have much to say. I can sum them all up in three words: Cowboy Bebop is pretty good, Tonari no Seki-kun is pretty cute, and N.H.K. ni Yōkoso! is shit (at first I thought it was great, but halfway in, the show died). So what was I going to do? Finals are coming up and I have to study! But I ended up going out for yoga with my friend Thursday evening, so I had completed all my homework the day before, plus I got home late and wasn't going to start on homework then. Enter movie time. The winner? John Carpenter's They Live starring Roddy Piper, Keith David, and Meg Foster. Awesome.

Nada (Piper) is a construction worker drifting through town, hoping to find work. He does, but in an "aliens-have-taken-over-and-are-keeping-us-in-the-dark" way. With the help of his friend Frank (David), and the mysterious woman Holly Thompson (Foster), Nada is ready to kick some alien butt.

They Live started off rather normally, but turned into a bad-ass John Carpenter after about twenty minutes. Seriously, the moment Nada gets the sunglasses, he starts killing and not giving a hoot. And I'm happy to say I finally know where that bubble gum line comes from now. It's pure, pure John Carpenter. If you like his weird, campy style, you'll love They Live. You will. I was actually expecting a more serious film given the subject matter. It's discussing the current state of affairs with a pretty good metaphor, I must say. I guess I was a little disappointed it wasn't as serious, but I always had a good time with this one. It brings up a true message, but it's still John Carpenter having fun. Thus, unlike the glasses, you can watch this film and not worry about coming down too hard. Great fun.

I... again have nothing else to say about this one. It's funny, it's serious, it's John Carpenter. Happy November, guys!

Review CXIX - Society

Review 119
Society (1989)

Happy Halloween everyone! I know I don't really have that much time to review movies during the school year, but I try and make an effort to watch at least a Halloween movie for this time of year. I'm a bit late this time, but horror movies can be enjoyed any time of the year, am I right? And today I bring you one that I had heard of before but completely forgot about it. It is Brian Yuzna's Society.

Bill Whitney (Billy Warlock) should feel like he has it all - born into a rich and loving family, a wonderful girlfriend, living a high class life - but instead he feels like he doesn't quite belong. His parents don't treat him exactly as his sister, his friend keeps warning him against his family, and he has weird... visions. Is Bill just crazy, or is there a disturbing truth about this... society?

The film apparently has special effects done by a well-known man going by the name of "Screaming Mad George". I don't follow horror movies all that much, so I had never heard the name before, but it might mean something to someone out there. For those who know nothing about him and want to know what I thought of the gore, well, it was... creative. This is maybe spoiling a little bit, so be warned. You only really get it at the end, and I found it pretty minimal. I mean, what's there is good, though it wasn't as bloody as it was gooey, and even the goo wasn't as exaggerated as I would have liked. What was there was creative, I'll give it that - there's one cover for the film that demonstrates this - but to say it was a film for the gore and special effects, no.

What you'll check this movie out for (maybe) is the plot. Society is like Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, except with no finesse and beautiful camera shots. It goes right out and tells you about an upper class preying on the middle/lower class and claiming they have every right to. And it adds it in a horror movie style. Also, the acting and characters in Society are flat as hell - the main guy is just too typically eighties-sitcom protagonist. And the ending was lame.

Overall, Society has a proper message to deliver, but it fails to do it well with characters tripping and falling on their faces, gore that's interesting but lacking, and a vibe way too eighties for my liking. It's an interesting watch, but only check it out for a little introduction to Eyes Wide Shut. And to see a face where an ass should be.

Review CXVIII - Spring Breakers

Review 118
Spring Breakers (2013)

I'm angry and ready to rant, so I decided to watch a film I knew I could complain about. Time for another Harmony Korine movie - this time his latest shit, Spring Breakers, starring James Franco, Selena Gomez, and honestly, a bunch of other names I don't care for.

Honestly, you only need to know one thing about this film, and it straight up says it in the title: spring break. There. That's my plot summary.

Guys, when I reviewed Kids, I pretty much said this film was about drug culture in youth, something I know little about, and I concluded the film was okay. If I said otherwise, sorry, I can't recall. Now, what is this film about? Drug culture in youth. Okay, okay, there is a bit more to it. There's also the party culture, and it focuses more on women (yay, great) than Kids. But basically, Harmony Korine hasn't changed what his films are about. I mean, look, Harmony Korine is not a well-liked director, or so I've seen. Anyone who likes him has not yet been introduced to real pretentious films because his "deep" films are not deep - they're superficial and just garbage. Taking random guys off the street to act in your films doesn't mean they'll be good - it means they'll suck. But I'm just telling you what you already know. Kids wasn't the worst from what I remember, but let me tell you, I'm gonna rip a new one for Spring Breakers. And there is mostly one reason for it: the reviewers.

I debated watching this film. I knew what it was about because this film captures the garbage shit high school/college kids follow now. Dances consist of grinding, meeting with friends means drinking to no end. It's everything I hate about my generation, so I was really on the fence. I was curious, but I wanted to know if the film actually had a message, maybe one of Kids where the cycle of debauchery will continue forever. Plus it had James Franco - I mean, I don't like the guy, but it was still a big name. The only name I recognise from other Harmony Korine films is Chloë Sevigny. Everyone else is some rejected kid. So this film looked higher budget, had bigger names - maybe things had changed? Still, I decided to check out some reviews. Here's what I got:
1. Deep
2. Meaningful
3. The best Harmony Korine film
4. Not good, but got better over time
5. Boring, but worth it

Well, shit, that seems pretty convincing, right? Apart from 3, which could still mean the film was shit, Spring Breakers at least had potential, am I right? I should have remembered the golden rule of reviewers: they don't watch good films, and their top tens include some crappy Marvel film like Guardians of the Galaxy. Of course I'm generalising, but seriously, Spring Breakers was breaking my back and mind... Yeah, that didn't work. It was bad. I was angry. The film was party, party, party for the first half, and then it went to violence I didn't even care about. What is it trying to tell me, that our youth has crazy parties and they are messed up? What I'm getting out of it is that having spring break and going nuts is okay, as long as you let it go. Spoilers: do we support Selena Gomez (called Faith because this film is made for nimwits who did everything spelled out to them) when she leaves? Is it okay that she got drunk and made out with some guys/girls because she didn't rob the chicken place and because she's a practicing Christian? The film points to yes. We sympathise with Faith. I didn't. She's an idiot for following these girls as soon as she finds out they rob a place to go on spring break. Not to mention the guy she follows at her church seems like the shittiest trucker shit I've ever seen. He's not a priest - he's a joke. I feel like Harmony Korine picked him up off the street and told him to pretend to be a priest. The film basically mocks Faith, and while we, the audience, are supposed to sympathise with her, I didn't. She's an idiot. I'm glad she left when the going got tough, but this idea that a "one-time" partier is okay is wrong. It isn't right, it will never be right... Argh. Anyway, the rest of the movie. Was it deep? No. There was only one reviewer who got it right - you can't have your cake and eat it too. The film is trying to tell me that this party culture is bad and will lead to serious consequences, but then it exploits tits like no tomorrow. This is what brought people in - young girls in bikinis and possible nudity. It delivered, and not in a negative way. You could make it evident it happened without showing, but don't worry, Harmony Korine made sure to exploit those breasts and lean, young girls. This is deep? This is a message being delivered? Again, I just... how can a film lecture me about moral standings when it itself is not holding a moral ground on the very subject matter it's lecturing me on? So no. This film is not deep, it's shit.

Meaningful? Same response as the deep idea.

The best Harmony Korine film? It's a step-up because it has a bigger budget, but it's still boring, it's still shit. It's still Harmony Korine.

Not good, but got better over time? Do I look like this film is going to stay with me? Again, I could see some kids going like, "Wow, man. That film was so Harmony Korine. He's so deep, the message is so deep." Please, go watch The Seventh Seal and tell me which one is better. Please, let our generation have an appreciation for good films, not bad ones...

Finally, boring, but worth it. No. Russian films can be long, they can be boring, but that's their cinema. It's how it works. I skipped about after the one hour mark because it was tedious and kept going on and on about how I'm a gangsta and I'm a bad girl and blah blah blah. If a film is boring, don't defend it. It's boring, that's it. It's garbage, it's garbage. That's it! Guys, no.

There's also another point, something about James Franco. Honestly, his character was annoying. I'm glad he was able to piss me off the moment he talked - good job, James Franco (sarcasm)! Don't watch it for him because you'll likely blow your brains out how James Franco's character's brains SHOULD HAVE EXPLODED. Who keeps GUNS FULLY-LOADED AROUND. This guy is the biggest idiot I've ever seen. Eff him. And eff the stupid girls too. You see these girls acting like men, drinking like crazy and having sex like mad? I love it. Thanks, feminism. Thanks.

Spring Breakers should be ignored and never considered. Never watch it. Don't support it. The only reason I didn't waste my time with this piece of shit is because I did an assignment at the same time. Freakin' damn...

P.S. Did you watch the film and are now feeling filthy? Here, some Gregorian chants. You're welcome.

Review CXVII - Vampire's Kiss

Review 117
Vampire's Kiss (1988)

I've reviewed one Nicolas Cage movie before, but I decided to pick a good one. This time around, I was hanging out at a friend's, and he was feeling a Cage movie. Of course I got say over the movie to watch, so I chose Robert Bierman's Vampire's Kiss. You probably know it because of this face. Yeah, if a film is only known for a face, that's when you worry.

Peter Loew (Nicolas Cage), a literary agent, suffering from impeding insanity, lives a sleazy lifestyle after work consisting of clubs, drinking, and one night stands. However, when one of his one night stands (Jennifer Beals) turns out to be a vampire, Peter Loew's life takes a turn for the worst.

Before I sound like I defend this movie, let me say I'm not. The film is bad. It's confusing in its narrative, random, poorly written, stupid, lazy... I could go on, but you get the idea. The film is not worth watching. I mean, it's funny, but it's not that funny - it's just more boring and mediocre than anything else. Honestly, balls-to-the-wall honesty, I wouldn't recommend this film except for a select few scenes, my favourite being the entrance to the club nearing the end of Vampire's Kiss. But that's it. As far as Nicolas Cage movies go, there are worse and there are better and there are definitely funnier.

But. But, but, but. Well, it's not a "but", but I like the segue. See, although the film was bad, there was kind of an underlying theme that I can't say I disagreed with. Spoilers. All right, so what do we know about vampires, classic vampires? If you read Dracula, or even if you checked out a classic vampire film, you notice something that happens to the women after they get bitten by the men - they turn a little... sexual. They wear revealing dresses, they seduce men, they seduce many men. Basically, vampires can be taken as these degenerate beings that explore and exploit all types of sexual vices. Now, what kind of behaviour is Peter Loew engaging in? One night stands. Pretty degenerate, eh? What does he encounter with the first one night stand? A bat. A bat, as we know, is what a vampire transforms into. What happens with the second one night stand? She's an actual vampire. Well, shit. That was unexpected. And the first girl actually tries to get a relationship out of Peter, but Peter keeps ditching her for the vampire, casual sex. When he's the vampire, he becomes an asshole and completely beats on Juanita (Maria Conchita Alonso), his secretary. And of course she's the devote the Catholic who he wants to break down, and does eventually after raping her. Finally, in the end, we see that Nicolas Cage decides that to escape his fall, he would need to find actual love. Of course, he's too far gone, so it's too late for that, but still, it's something I can completely agree with. We think that a life of debauchery is typical of youth and necessary to live, but it could very well lead to your downfall. Take any celebrity who died of a drug overdose. Look at the people who sleep around and get a venereal disease because they aren't careful. I also think it's also interesting to note that Nicolas Cage ends up with a white woman at the end of the film... But for the sake of avoiding being called racist, I'll let you check out the film yourself if you're curious (it's still bad, so don't).

That's all I got for you in Vampire's Kiss. I'm also exhausted and have class tomorrow, so I had better go get some shuteye. I wouldn't recommend this film, but I would totally recommend the message... Assuming I got the proper message... Anyway, bye, folks!

Review CXVI - Rope

Review 116
Rope (1948)

The end of August is fast approaching, and that also means a new school semester is right around the corner. Starting something new this time around, so here's hoping all goes well! What a better way to celebrate than with Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 classic, Rope, starring John Dall, Farley Granger, and James Stewart? The story is based on the events of Leopold and Loeb's killing of an innocent boy after believing they had reached Nietzsche's übermensch status. Let's get a chokehold on this review! (Completely forced, sorry.)

Brandon (John Dall) convinces Philip (Farley Granger) to kill their friend, David (Dick Hogan), as he believes the two have reached a status that puts them above murder. But this isn't enough - Brandon decides, in order to show his superiority, to host a party, inviting David's father, Mr. Kentley (Cedric Hardwicke), David's aunt (Constance Collier), his lover, Janet (Joan Chandler), and the three's old headmaster, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), who may have more to do with the killing than he realises.

The film consisted of super long shots, each approximately ten minutes each, and that is something I really liked about Rope. I've always thought theatre is probably much more difficult than film if only because there are no second chances, and this film shows that these actors were nothing less than their theatre counterparts. And yes, indeed, the acting was grand. Anyway, back to cinematography... Though the shots were long, they never got boring or made you feel like they were super lengthy. Alfred Hitchcock made the camera move around, follow characters, tell a story on its own without accompanying dialogue... Pretty cool stuff!

I watched the film with a friend, and once it was over, he commented on how gay the protagonists were. I hadn't even picked up on, completely absorbed by the murder it was based on. Plus, to me, poshy characters always came off as a bit more feminine to me, so I wasn't convinced... Until I looked at the facts. It's funny how transparent a film can be once you catch one little hint. I think the biggest thing I noticed was the clue from the closet, an obvious euphemism for being gay. I also recognised the first movement from Trois mouvements perpétuels from Poulenc, and wondered if Poulenc was gay - he was, struggling with his sexuality, similar to the character who speeds along his piece in the film (please listen to a beautiful version of the song here). Honestly, this little extra twist to the film is what made it for me. In my last review, I was déçue by the fact that I hadn't caught a deeper meaning for Dogtooth and, thus, couldn't say I really got the film. Once you really take cinema as an art within an art, you definitely get more for your buck.

Rope is not the best film I've seen, but it's definitely a fun watch with a good introduction to hidden meanings in film. You'll be positively gay after checking this one out.

Review CXV - Dogtooth

Review 115
Dogtooth (2009)

I'm sorry for vanishing. I've been knitting like a fiend before school starts again, which means I just watch movies and knit and never review them... Anyway, I was working when someone recommended I watch a "really messed up film". The film was Yorgos Lanthimos' Dogtooth. I was excited - this would be the first film from Greece I'd ever seen, but I was skeptical as to how crazy it would really be. Well, we'll explore that.

What if we could hide the dangers of the outside from our children? A mother and father decide to take up the challenge and keep their three children isolated from society until they "lose their canine teeth". Words referring to the outside are changed to perceivable objects in the house or garden, and planes are said to be toys that will fall in the garden. But innocence only prevails for so long...

Okay, yes, the movie is messed up. While every parent wishes to protect their children, you would never imagine that if they were actually able to do it, it would lead to something like this. However, I'm assuming this film has a deeper meaning than just this "keeping children innocent"... My only guess is maybe related to keeping the family so close-knit? Maybe refusing your children to marry only the people you wish for them to marry? Or maybe it has to do with globalisation, that is inevitable, and that Greece can't stay hidden away forever from the American culture? Maybe it is looking at how the new generation has to struggle with keeping up with Greek values and not completely moving to a Western way of thinking? I can't figure it out because I know practically nothing about Greece's affairs, except for the recent public demand of the rejection of the Euro, a particular globalised ideal. Really, I haven't figured it out, so I feel a bit sad because I'm obviously missing out on something important that let this film win the Un Certain Regard prize at the Cannes film festival.

Despite not knowing the hidden message, I thought the film was... okay. I was actually expecting something a bit more beautiful considering the prize it won. The shots were clean and smooth, the palette nice and consistent, but I didn't have the magic of Get Carter for example. That had some nifty camera work, but Dogtooth? Not really. Again, it had a nice palette and real clean shots, but there was nothing that grabbed my eye in terms of shot dynamics.

The plot, well, I thought it was pretty crazy, but the parents were pretty freakin' crazy, man. There's keeping them innocent, but there's being super perverse and messed up about it, which is what this was. I don't know how the father expected the outside girl from security to keep private about everything. I also think he would have been at least a little concerned about his doctor daughter (you'll see who I'm referring to if you checked out the film) doing these crazy things to your son. I think you'd be concerned about the behaviour from your son in relation to a cat. It's not like the mother and father are ignorant - they have lived in the outside world. I know that isn't the point of the film, but seriously, these guys are idiots. I would have been more careful in my approach so my children would be more normal.

Honestly, it's hard to review the movie given that I didn't understand the hidden meaning and was not particularly excited by it. In fact, it makes me a bit sad that the Cannes festival is choosing films like these, probably just because they're daring, violent, and nude. However, Dogtooth is not even a bad example. Dogtooth still takes an interesting idea and plays it out in a way you wouldn't expect. But freakin' La vie d'Adèle, also known as Blue is the Warmest Colour? My boyfriend and I were going to watch it, but we ended up with a copy playing the time at the top. He wanted to show me how bad it was, so he skipped to a random scene. The scene just so happened to be basically a sex scene from a porn movie. I am not even joking. And that shit was long. It probably went on for five minutes, or even ten. This is what is winning a prize? A freakin' porno? Maybe the film has something else going for it, but ten minutes of sex? It made me pretty disappointed, let me tell you. But maybe I'm just conservative like that... ._. Yeah, right.

Dogtooth is not bad, but it really isn't anything special. It had a few funny scenes, and I actually really liked Angeliki Papoulia's performance, but not enough to recommend this one.

Review CXIV - A Walk to Remember

Review 114
A Walk to Remember (2002)

I didn't expect this movie to be good, but this movie had haunted me for a while... That makes it sound ominous, but that's not what I mean. I remember a friend many, many years back talked about this movie, and it had been referenced quite a few places. But like Soul Plane, it should have stayed buried... I'm talking about Adam Shankman's A Walk to Remember starring Mandy Moore and Shane West. Now, a quick search shows me that the film was slammed by critics - except Roger Ebert apparently (?!) - but praised by audiences. I decided it was time to break the curse - it was time to watch this movie and see just how bad it was.

Insert typical love teen romance. Insert devote, secluded, isolated Christian follower who's HOT and an angsty, bad ass teenage boy who falls for her. Insert bad ass friends and quirky black character. Insert bad ass friends reject boy when he decides to go with the girl. Insert boy doing everything for this guy while keeping his pants in check. Insert cancer (real cancer, not just the film), what a twist! Insert death. Insert medical school. Insert teenage romance never dies.

Guys... This film... Okay, let me get one thing straight. I'm not a romance type. I liked When Harry Met Sally... for example, but Say Anything... ? No. I mean, a little sub-plot of romance, fine, but... Okay, how about I say I don't like chick flicks? Alain Delon films do not count! I jest, but yeah, chick flicks are my nemesis being of that gender. So really, what was I expecting from A Walk to Remember? Not much, but I was expecting more. Let's go through this, shall we?

The acting. It was bad. No, seriously, it was bad. Shane West was awful. It was just edge the whole way through. Everything was wooden and lacking. Mandy Moore? Not any better. Again, this wooden acting every damn time. How can you get away with this? This was like watching a teenage play, but probably worse. It's almost like Dean Learner's delivery. But here I wanted an act, not someone putting on the truth.

The writing. Now, I can bitch about the acting, but my boyfriend - who got maybe five minutes into the film and was already dying - pointed out a valid point: The dialogue is atrocious. And it is. It was like the writers had never sat down with anyone and talked. Instead, they had them speak perfectly square sentences or just had really awkward phrases. Maybe it's Nicholas Sparks, the writer of whose book this is based on (please never read that), but the screenplay was written by some woman named Karen Janszen. Just look at the other films she's written for. Yeah, we were doomed from the beginning.

The plot. This ties into the writing, but it deserves a separate section. It was bad. I mean, again, what did I expect? I didn't expect anything good, but I'm going to go on a rant here. These damn films play into this idea that women can change men. Shane West's character (Layden I think? ... Oh, Landon) was this bad boy who nearly killed a kid and gets forced into doing some extracurricular activities at school. He happens upon Mandy Moore's character (Sam? Was that her name? ... It was Jamie. Woops) and nearly bites her face off. And then she sings some song at the end of some play and BAM, he falls for her. He abandons his friends, his lifestyle, and devotes (again, this word) his world to this girl. I mean, look, I can't say it's impossible, but this guy buys a STAR for this girl. I mean, shit, c'mon. He doesn't believe in God as she does, and yet we never have a debate. It's never an issue. I don't know - this girl brings up her faith rather frequently. I could see it being a problem, no? I mean, I've had debates even with just friends who had rather strict religious upbringings. I couldn't imagine myself staying wit- okay, sorry, I deviated a little too much. Basically, this guy left all his friends for this girl he's known for two weeks. I can't see this working out. And yet it does. He abandons everything. Even his mom gets a little worried when he decides he wants to go to medical school (we'll get back to this point in a minute). Let's be realistic here - this relationship is doomed and completely unrealistic. But this film plays on this fantasy teenage girls must have that they can form a guy to be exactly what they want. You can't. And it's disgusting if people take advice from these shitty, shitty films. How about a realistic relationship film? How about one where the two accept their differences and love each other? Because as much as there's this notion of "opposites attract", that's in magnetism, not between people.

Now, the plot there with the father and Landon? Garbage. I have never seen such shitty writing. This kid is upset because his father abandoned his family, yet I think it was just a divorce since the father wants to be close to his son. I mean, he's a cardiologist, so I would hope his son would be smarter than this. Although Landon does get into medical school, he's socially inept. Anyway, the only reason he ends up reconciling with his dad because his dad pays for private care for Jamie. I'm out. I'm freakin' OUT.

The way the girl brings up cancer is also really bad. I mean, damn, she reveals it for no apparent reason in an alley. She's apparently known for two years, has stopped treatment, and never even mentioned it to Landon. What a bitch! Wouldn't this be something you would tell someone you love BEFORE you start messing with their emotions? I'm wondering if this cancer plot is just a way of preserving a doomed relationship in the early stages of puppy love. Or maybe it's just bad writing.

The Christian plot was also... awkward. I mean, again, there is never a debate. Landon doesn't believe in God, yet we get these awkward scenes where Jamie brings it up casually and talks about Landon being her angel. Wouldn't you feel uncomfortable if you weren't religious and your significant other started bringing up this stuff? ... I guess it's just me. It really didn't make sense to me to have this part. I guess maybe it's just because it was in the book, but it didn't translate to the screen well at all. But then nothing did.

A Walk to Remember feeds into the teenage girl's dream about romance where you can model your boyfriend to abandon his life for you, all while having cancer and loving Jesus. Let us never speak of this one again.

Review CXIII - The Human Centipede (First Sequence)

Review 113
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2009)

The slasher genre has never been a particular favourite of mine. While I enjoy a good zombie movie every once in a while, like Dead Alive, Friday the 13th and the like do not appeal to me. But I've gone on this rant before, so there's no need to start again. However, gore films as of recently, circa 2000, have turned into super gore films that aim to just disgust. When I saw that A Serbian Film was considered one of the grossest movie, I checked it out. ... It was bad. I mean, the gore wasn't even that bad - it was just trying to disturb and disgust people with the mix of violence, sexual themes taken waaay too far, and uncomfortableness. This is the desensitisation movies need to pass in order to stand out? Of course I sound all high and mighty, but then I sat down to watch Tom Six's The Human Centipede (First Sequence) with one of my siblings after wanting to see just how bad it was. Go me?

Two American girls (Ashley C. Williams and Ashlynn Yennie) and a Japanese man (Kitamura Akihiro) are forced into a bizarre experiment by a top surgeon gone wrong (Dieter Laser).

The first installment in the series was not as bad as I thought it would be. And by bad, I mean gory and disgusting. Let me elaborate on that first. I mean, the IV scene was a bit gross, but once the operation is completed, you don't see anything. I wouldn't want to, but it would have made me really see the gore effects. Although I hated Poultrygeist (that review is from a while back, eh?), at least the gore was promising. But in this one... We see an infection, but honestly, it relies more on the idea of the operation than the gore. The idea is good, but I don't know man, I wanted some gore. And I didn't get that. So what do I get? Nothing.

Why don't I get anything? Because the film is also bad in plot, acting, characters... While I thought acting and characters would be lacking, I was hopeful in the plot. But I was pretty meh about the plot from right off the bat. I know horror movies deal with people that keep making obviously bad decisions, but our main characters, the two girls there, really are just beyond stupid. Personal safety and dealing with creepy guys making completely sexual passes... But whatever, fine, horror movie logic. But then the issue I refuse to let pass was that the doctor never explains why he obsesses with this ass-to-mouth business. I laughed with the first scene where he stares down at the picture of the dog creation he made, but then I never get an explanation. The guy is a top-notch surgeon, but that means nothing. The closest I get is when the Japanese guy ironically yells, "You German Nazi bastard!" But that's it. I mean, the doctor guy isn't even that old, so he can't be a Nazi. And that's just some guy yelling out of frustration, so that's no explanation either. It's never accepted nor disproven. Maybe if he was a closeted homosexual who was into rimming... (Gross, I know. Sorry) I would have accepted any excuse - not liked it necessarily, but accepted it - but offering none just didn't work for me. Yes, he's a sadist and messed up, but why the extended gastrointestinal tract? Why that in particular? And this goes beyond wanting to show his talent - this is a sexual thing. Spoiler alert, but when the doctor is climbing the stairs, he seductively licks the blood off of them. Even before that, you just get the sense he's turned on by the whole matter. But nothing is explained, and while that might not impede others, it definitely got me thinking about it the whole film. I mean, even if it was an explanation like Jerry Brudos, that would have been cool.

As you can tell from my nitpicking, I didn't really find the film all that great, so all I'm doing is getting hung up on details. It had a poor rating, but I was hoping I could get a good laugh out of this one. I didn't. While The Human Centipede has made quite a name for itself, I can't say it's anything special. It aims to make you uncomfortable and think you're watching shocking, but it's really not as bad as the idea implies. Skip it.

Oh, and this 100% medically accurate? Are they trying to pull a fast one? I don't even know.

Review CXII - Wag the Dog

Review 112
Wag the Dog (1997)

Loving the Spanish poster, which translates to smoke screen. Anyway, I came across Barry Levison's Wag the Dog... somehow. And when I saw who starred in it (Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro), along with cameos from some known faces (Woody Harrelson and Jim Belushi), I was surprised I had never heard of this film. But then again, I don't like comedies really, and I don't usually explore political comedies. But the big names made me have hope. I mean, Robert De Niro had even helped to produce this one. Must be good, right?

The presidential election for the United States is eleven days away, and an underage "Firefly Girl" (translation: girl scout) has accused the president of sexual advances. The president is seeking another term, and this could make him lose the election. So what does spin doctor Conrad Brean (Robert De Niro) decide could save the president? A distraction. Something big. How about a war? With Albania? With the help of director/producer Stanley Motts (Dustin Hoffman), this war may be the saving grace in this election.

The shots were weird in this one. There were some weird focuses and zoom-ins that made the film seem like a television show at times. Otherwise, there was nothing particularly interesting going on, unfortunately.

The acting was good and I did actually laugh during the film. Dustin Hoffman's character did give me a good laugh at times, which is usually rare for me in dark comedies. I'll see the humour, but it won't make me laugh out loud. This one did. Comedic genius? No. But it gives a little laugh.

Even though Wag the Dog might not seem like your type of movie and even I didn't really find the film that good, I will recommend it for a watch anyway. And I'll tell you why: The government lies. I'm sure you've all heard about the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 when the twin towers fell, or about assassinations maybe being plots from the government. I can't offer you the answers to those theories, it's something you would have to search on your own, but I think it's important you know right off the bat that not everything you see should be trusted. Your government doesn't have your best interests at heart, at least part of the time. And I can offer you a little story to help you understand if you think I'm a raving nut and "conspiracy theorists are just nut bags". It even relates to movies and directors - hurray! Stanley Kubrick released 2001: A Space Odyssey back in 1968, about a year before the first moon landing from the United States. The film has one particular scene where the group of scientists head to the monolith on... Jupiter, was it? Anyway, the monolith is surrounded by film cameras and lighting, almost like a movie set. Could this be a reference to another conspiracy theory about the moon landings being fake? In a way, yes, though the reality is a little less bleak. Apparently Stanley Kubrick was approached in order to film some "moon shots" if the footage from the Apollo 11 mission would have been sub par (Though reading now, it seems this is not true? I don't even know anymore). So I like to assume that the moon landings did happen, but that they needed footage to show the public because this was the television age after all. But really, if this stuff has been going on since the sixties, who is to say they haven't stretched televised reports? After all, Watergate, where Nixon was found falsifying the election votes, was a thing. And there is a thing called synchronicity, but I'll leave you that to look up yourselves if you're interested. I'm not confirming or disproving any theories because seriously, there is so much to say and some of it is major baloney, but if there's one thing I say to take away from Wag the Dog, it's to question everything. Descartes may have lived a long time ago, but the meaning of questioning dogma is still valid and especially appropriate today where knowledge is available at our fingertips.

Wag the Dog - we might be the people, but we're manipulated in order to follow a government plan. The title is appropriate, isn't it?

Review CXI - Per qualche dollaro in più

Review 111
For a Few Dollars More (1965)

This review was supposed to come out waaay before I'm actually posting it. But I ended up getting bu- what, you're tired of hearing the same excuses over and over again? Fine. So, here is the second film in the "Dollars" trilogy from Sergio Leone, Per qualche dollaro in più with our usual protagonist Clint Eastwood, alongside the ever-so-lovely Lee Van Cleef and familiar face Gian Maria Volonté. Lezz go!

The Man with No Name (Clint Eastwood) returns, stronger than ever to get those bounties. However, bounty hunter Colonel Douglas Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef) is particularly interested in catching one man, El Indio, a criminal with a high bounty. When Monco (as The Man with No Name is known in the film) decides to go after El Indio as well, the colonel decides to work together in order to catch this infamous and crazy man. But does Monco really approve?

Okay, so For a Few Dollars More was beautiful. It was a lot more colourful than A Fistful of Dollars, and you could see Sergio Leone was exploring more in this film. However, the plot was... lacking. I mean, you had the first one ripping off some Japanese film (I watched Yojimbo - it really is a double to A Fistful of Dollars, but with funnier music), but now I can see why - Sergio Leone wasn't quite at his peak in story-telling yet. Hence why this one is a bit meh at times. I mean, Monco is cool, Colonel Mortimer is cool, but El Indio's back story was meh. I mean, the way the shots were put together for the back story was cheesy, and I don't know, it was flimsy. I don't want to ruin it, but you guys might see what I mean if you watch the film. I dunno, it's just weak. But the ending worked with it, so Sergio Leone was close, but he really got it down with The Good, The Bad, The Ugly. Again, like A Fistful of Dollars, this was more of an experiment, or practice, if you will, which would lead into an ultimate classic.

As I mentioned, the shots were very nice. Not quite The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, but Sergio Leone was trying. There is some reference to the final scene of The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, but less refined. But in this one, he played with mirrors, with windows, the like. It was good. Not spectacular, but good nonetheless. And the additional colours were nice. Not just going with sandy brown, dark browns, black, and sandied-green, but brighter yellows, blues, etc. Not necessarily something you care about, but it's something my boyfriend enjoyed mentioning throughout the whole film, hehe.

For a Few Dollars More is not necessarily as good plot-wise as its predecessor or successor, but at least this one was no rip-off. Sergio Leone was trying to get more stable footing in terms of cinematography in this one, and its higher budget is definitely noticed. Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Gian Maria Volonté all did great jobs, though unfortunately, the plot made it so no one particularly shined... Well, they were still all bad ass, so I guess that isn't completely true, hehe. Not his best, but still a fun watch from Sergio Leone! Oh, and Ennio Morricone still rocks it.

Review CX - Per un pugno di dollari

Review 110
A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

Aside from The Good, The Bad, The Weird (which, looking back, probably lacks in the proper formula for a Western), I never used to watch Westerns. It seemed like people had this assumption that you either liked them or you didn't. For whatever reason, I wasn't sure I would enjoy them. Sure, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (or Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo) was a classic with one of the most famous soundtracks known culturally from the brilliant Ennio Morricone, but I stayed away, thinking it wasn't my type of film and it'd be best to stay away. I ended up watching The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly way back, but I didn't fully take it in because I still had this idea that Westerns weren't for me... Later on, I watched Once Upon a Time in the West (note all these films are from Sergio Leone) and really saw potential. But it was only recently that my boyfriend discussed the meaning of riding into the sunset, always looking for improvement, that I decided it was time to sit down and watch a Western properly. I wanted to start at the beginning of Sergio Leone's epics (or the first of the Dollars trilogy) - so I started A Fistful of Dollars. It stars Clint Eastwood as the Man with No Name, Gian Maria Volonté as the main antagonist (Holy shit - this is the guy from Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion! Never thought I'd see him again), José Calvo (un español! Je pensais qu'il était un italien aussi!), and Marianne Koch. I was excited to check this one out, guys, I really was. But was I satisfied...?

The Man with No Name (referred to as "Joe" for the rest of this article) (Clint Eastwood) happens upon a town and quickly learns from the barman (José Calvo) that he should leave the town - there are two gangs that run the town and few insiders survive, let alone outsiders. However, "Joe" decides to take it upon himself to help the town out by turning the two gangs against each other.

Now, if you know A Fistful of Dollars, then you probably know that the plot is identical to that of 用心棒 or Yojimbo for us non-Japanese-speaking individuals (但是我动汉语,所以我可以董一些字). Apparently, the only difference is that Yojimbo takes places in ancient Japan and features a samurai and A Fistful of Dollars is a Western. But I never actually saw Yojimbo, so I can't hate on the remade plot or make a comparison. Still, I'm sure 黒澤明 (Kurosawa Akira) got it down super well in Yojimbo, along with the ever-wonderful 三船敏郎 (Mifune Toshirō), so kudos to them. Anyway, I'll get around to watching Yojimbo at some point and, when I do, I'll put my two cents in. Whatever the case, I enjoyed the story of A Fistful of Dollars. I mean, it wasn't anything spectacular, but it was cute. And Gian Maria Volonté played a pretty damn evil man, but I like that as he did it well. Clint Eastwood was, well, a bad ass of course and absolutely loveable. There's just something about how a man holds a pistol, smokes a cigar, and wears a poncho.

But seriously, I got a few good laughs in the movie and I thought it was fun. Since I had seen The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, I could definitely tell this preceded as it lacked the visual elements that were refined for the last Dollars trilogy film. It tried some things, but again, it was nothing special in the cinematographic department. That came later. Still, I enjoyed it. The plot kept me, but to me, I've watched these Westerns more for the people than the plot. I really look at how the character goes about things because usually the plot is pretty simple (based on the few that I have seen) - someone wants money, someone wants revenge, a bad guy is the source. You better hope your actors play the parts well or else you get a bland movie with a nothing plot. But Clint Eastwood was real good. I mean, he plays the anti-hero well and was pretty inspiring (made me wish I could fight in such a manner and come out as cool, but maybe that's just me). And again, Gian Maria Volonté was good - I was definitely convinced.

I took the whole film as a kind of little experiment from Sergio Leone, where he was learning the tricks of the trade, figuring out what he wanted. Given the tiny budget, yet rather avid following that came, he definitely got a second, third, nth chance. So the film isn't his best, but I still had fun. Next up - For A Few Dollars More.

Review CIX - How to Get Ahead in Advertising

Review 109
How to Get Ahead in Advertising (1989)

(Image from here featuring Ralph Steadman's crazy art)

I've already talked about how much I loved Withnail and I from Bruce Robinson. However, I always paired this film with How to Get Ahead in Advertising as it came out around the same time (two years after Withnail and I) and also stars Richard E. Grant. The two are not related, but after watching Withnail and I, I always knew I would have to check out How to Get Ahead in Advertising. Years passed and I finally decided to sit down and get a viewing. Somehow it seems fitting after watching whatever that last one was.

Denis Dimbleby Bagley (Richard E. Grant) is an advertising tycoon who is considered one of the best. However, if there's one thing he despises, it's boils. And now he's taken up a job for a pimple cream that is driving him off the edge.

How to Get Ahead in Advertising grew on me (not unlike the boil in the movie). When I watched it, I wasn't really sure how to take it. I mean, Richard E. Grant's performance was over-the-top and the messages were just thrown at you so blatantly. I sat on the fence for a while, but looking back on the film about a week later, I can say I enjoyed it, but it was not a favourite. Why did it take so long for me to decide? We'll get to that.

The movie is a criticism of the advertisement industry and a man who, while thinks he might be able to escape it, is forced back into it quickly. I like that. As Richard E. Grant's character explains at one point, the industry makes you believe what you don't need is what you want, and what you want is what you need. While Denis Bagley originally takes this in stride, he eventually sees the light and decides he's done with his job. Enter the malicious boil, his evil side. The film then gets particularly whacky, which was crazy, but expected from the farce it was. I mean, I didn't mind the whackiness, but I can't say I completely dug it. I guess maybe because I was expecting a different turn, it didn't meet my expectations, but not in the most positive of ways. It seemed like with the introduction of the boil, the film got all rushy and was all over the place. It never really look an easy path, though I remember thinking something similar of Withnail and I. Still, Withnail and I seemed to take it at a better pace than How to Get Ahead in Advertising. Consequently, I prefer Withnail and I.

The film may have been sporadic, but the message was definitely clear - the advertising industry is out to sell, not to help. How much do you really need all these products advertised to you? These diet packages and foods are not necessarily that great for you, but they show you how effective they are at helping you. Still, you could easily lose weight if you put on the proper mindset and did your own research. Or the advertisements that carry a jingle and make you think you need to go somewhere to be happy. Denis Bagley realises he is contributing to this spew of psychological manipulation and decides he's had enough. He could be a typical consumer who makes such an epiphany. However, in the end, Bagley's "bad boil" side comes through and, while now alone and separated from his wife, he doesn't care. The industry does not have room for those with a moral compass, said and done. Now, I won't say all advertising is bad, but there is definitely manipulation that people should be aware of. Psychologists are often hired in order to improve a company's advertising. There are certain tricks that have been established and if they get a product to sell, that's what the company cares about. But if you're aware of what's going on, you're safe. You don't take in the nonsense and you add an adblock on your browser. You don't have to become the all-evil persona of Denis Bagley - you can escape. Having that knowledge should at least put you a step above.

So I agree with the message of the film, great. But I don't like how the film so blatantly tells me its message. I mean, really, what did I expect from such a title. Obviously it would be about the moral standings of advertising, but still. I like a bit more of a puzzle-solver - I like having to think. How to Get Ahead in Advertising gets rid of that. It just straight up says what the advertising industry is doing and then points out what's wrong with it by making the "bad boil" only evil and manipulative. It also just reaffirmed points of view I already followed - it didn't teach me anything new. And again, it just went right up and told me the problem with everything. Thus, I got a sporadic film that got me laughing with Richard E. Grant's comical performance (I love when he pretends to be that woman in the office. I also love the scene where he talks through the box) that lectured me for about 90 minutes about stuff I already knew. It's not bad because at least it's trying to teach people a good message, but you don't really make thinking individuals by just telling them a message - you have to kind of bury it so they can find it themselves. It gives a longer lasting impression. In the end, the only thing that made me enjoy the film was Richard E. Grant's performance (and beauty, hehe) and the message I agreed with. But I can't say it's a film I would watch again because it lacks depth. I prefer it over the stupid crap that is basically an advertisement in itself, but sadly, it ended up just being a rather mediocre film.

Bruce Robinson's How to Get Ahead in Advertising is not a bad piece of cinema, yielding an important take-home message, but its rather shallow story-telling of the matter and rather random and super-fast pacing makes it sub-par in the world of thinking films. Worth a watch for Richard E. Grant and the rather cool special effects.

Review CVIII - Guardians of the Galaxy

Review 108
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

I happened upon James Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy probably around the time it came out in theatres. I was blown away by the rating - how was it so high? I had barely heard of this film - though I never go outside apparently as I would later find out - and here it had this amazing rating. I didn't trust it, so I never checked it out. However, after hearing about even more praise from a reviewer, I asked my boyfriend to sit down with me and watch the blockbuster smash starring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, and Bradley Cooper, along with some notable appearances from Glenn Close, Benicio Del Toro, Peter Serafinowicz, and John C. Reilly.

Peter Quill's (Chris Pratt) mother dies from cancer in 1988 and, after running out of the hospital (because that's how we convey our sadness in every film), he's taken in by a group of galactic mercenaries. Twenty-six years later, he finds himself in quite a situation when he steals an orb which may harvest more power than he ever imagined.

Let me summarise this film in one word: shit. Let me summarise it in one sentence: It's another typical, rip-off, money-grabbing, shitty Marvel film pushing the latest social agendas to today's kids and adults. But let's elaborate. I'll be spoiling the film, so you've been warned. First, what do I mean by rip-off? Check out the poster I found. Remind you of anything? Here's a hint. The bad guy in the film is straight-up Darth Maul/Darth Vader. Prison-break scene, kind of like rescuing Princess Leia. I don't even like Star Wars, but I see this, and I've only seen two of the films of the series. The Star Wars series is not the only thing it rips off. It rips off this whole Lord of the Rings idea with the whole orb killing everything it can with the one who possesses the power. And even I know this and I've only seen two Lord of the Rings films. Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't even try to mask this - it's just rip-off after rip-off. They also make a reference to Star Trek too with one of the characters (vulcans and whatever that tattoo guy was), but of course the film makers do this because they know people liked those ideas and so they recycle it in a new film where the masses get everything they want in one film. But c'mon, be creative! This is a film that's getting a super high rating? It has no originality - it just does the same thing as every other galaxy/fantasy film released by Hollywood. Please. Guys.

I didn't know this film was a Marvel film until just before watching it. I think if I would have seen that, I would have realised why the film had such a high rating. Marvel films went from just films watched by the comic-book fans to loved by the adolescent girls on social media. I don't know how it happened, but I think it started with Iron Man and slowly became this huge thing with the Avengers series. The CEOs and film developers saw a way to make money and they're attempting to squeeze out any sequel possible in order to make more money. But I didn't know anything about these guardians. Maybe it was legit, like Howard the Duck (I don't read comic books if you couldn't tell except for the occasional one). I decided to check it out, and excuse me if I'm wrong in my information - I quickly checked out Wikipedia. Basically these "guardians of the galaxy" were part of some Marvel superheros bit back in 1969 that eventually got its own-titled run. But guess what? There was some revamp thing going on in 2008, the same year that Iron Man the movie came out. I don't know if this is just coincidence, but my paranoid side makes me think they saw opportunity in this series, with its male and female protagonists, and brought it back so there would be a reason to make a film later on, assuming the Iron Man/Avengers series came to stardom like they hoped. I'm probably stretching it, but honestly, you never know.

So yeah, this film is unoriginal, it's a typical Marvel film, but is it really that bad? I never saw any of the Iron Man movies, nor any Avengers movies. I started watching Captain America: The Winter Soldier, but I dropped it so fast, I got a little past the running scene at the beginning and that was it. I obviously don't like them. I admit, I went into Guardians of the Galaxy being super biased, but if it would have offered something, anything, I was willing to accept it. Nope. This film stars some asshole main character who I don't care for. He doesn't take his mother's hand and she instantly dies (what a coincidence), so he regrets it for his whole life. He's left unattended where he then proceeds to run outside into a foggy field. Where is this hospital located? Why the fog? Why does everyone leave him alone? His mother just died. You can't get shittier writing than this. But it gets even better when you see how he's some smart-ass adult who sleeps around (of course), but yet has the most amazing talent I've ever seen. Remind me of Iron Man? You betcha. Then the racoon, the wood guy, the girl... Just replace the film with any of the Avengers shit and you're set. You are so set. It's recycled crap, guys! The humour, stupid. The dialogue, crap. The prison system, ridiculous. Men and women in the same prison? How about no. Strong-independent-woman-who-don't-need-no-man-except-when-she-craves-the-D? Check! A poor, educated racoon (unlike the educated owl from The Sword in the Stone), showing how testing on animals is bad? Check. Environment? Groot. Check. It's pushing a bunch of stuff the masses support just to get views. I just... whatever. The colours were drab too. I didn't see anything interesting going on. It was boring for my eyes. The CGI, fine, it was nice, but that doesn't make a film. It just looks like CGI. This is a live-action, not an animated film.

I didn't finish the film - I got an hour in - but I won't finish it. The film is garbage. It doesn't deserve the high rating it got. Maybe it's loyal to the comic books; however, I can only judge it from a watch. And it doesn't even deserve it. Avoid it. And did I mention they're making a sequel? 'Nough said.

Review CVII - Raising Arizona

Review 107
Raising Arizona (1987)

I remember when I watched The Big Lebowski and said I didn't particularly like it. I even reviewed it! Ahh, the days when I didn't really look into the hidden agenda of films. I haven't watched The Big Lebowski since then, but let's just say that review probably isn't as accurate as it should be in its present-day form. But hey, learning about the complexity of their films (including The Big Lebowski which even gives a reason as to why the Dude drinks white Russians) made me interested in watching the Coen brothers' Raising Arizona starring Nicolas Cage (have I gotten your attention now?), Holly Hunter, Trey Wilson, and Randall Cobb.

H.I. McDunnough meets the love of his life, police officer Ed(wina), after getting his mugshot for robbing a convenience store. Several arrests later, the two get married and attempt to start a new life and new family together. However, after releasing Ed is infertile, the two decide that the Arizonas don't need one of the quintuplets they have just had. But could this child really be the solution to their problems?

Raising Arizona was a little quirky. It was funny, though nothing particularly groundbreaking. I was worried this was going to take on a Baby's Day Out feel when we see H.I. trying to choose a baby and they're all getting out. Thankfully, it doesn't take that turn. But the film was still cute and colourful like a, dare I say it, Wes Anderson film. But the way the plot goes about is different, so while it's cute and has these bright colours, it's not exactly a Wes Anderson movie. But the nice cinematography is still present. The Coen brothers really liked giving point-of-view (POV) shots and moving the camera throughout the film. For example, we get the baby's POV while Nicolas Cage coos at it from the window. Another example is when a chase ensues and the camera follows behind the running characters. I liked that. I liked that the Coen brothers got the camera moving and really became part of the action instead of just used to capture the action on screen. So kudos for that!

Now, I didn't do a full-on analysis of the film and, while I read a few perspectives/analyses, I didn't find anything that deconstructed every scene. Nonetheless, we can discuss some common and more obvious aspects. I totally recommend looking for more detailed analyses if you're interested in learning more about the film. And finally, beware, this paragraph will have spoilers. The movie focuses on H.I., a recidivist thief who never actually fills his gun with ammo while he goes to rob convenience stores. This is brought up in the film twice, but make sure to remember that. Right off the bat, H.I. explains that prison life is very "structured, more than what most people care for". Yet, he explains the comradery - a support system - that exists in the prison. Already we can see why H.I. probably continuously goes back to prison. The life is structured and the people support his back. The second time he goes in - the time Ed says he fiancé ran off with another woman - he says he isn't exactly happy to be back, but prison life is just familiar and almost homey. This would explain why he does leave the institution, but always finds his way back. In the second psychological evaluation, the psychologist (or therapist or whatever) tells H.I. he should be getting married and having kids, while the Snoats (John Goodman and William Forsythe) say that sometimes work comes in front of family. And, at least on the surface, this is what the film is discussing. It goes from H.I. having to choose his "career" as a thief and the family life he makes for himself with Ed. He goes through the idea of stealing the baby not because he necessarily wants to, but because Ed wants to. When H.I. explains in voice over that the two "started in" with the child-rearing almost every day, you see H.I. doesn't seem particularly fond with the idea. He tells his wife to calm down. And it's only propogated later when Ed invites friends over and H.I. sees what marriage and children have done for their future. He's scared and has to make a decision - his career or his family? And the way he faces this is by creating his criminal self - Leonard Smalls, played by Randall Cobb. He may be real, but I like to think he's just H.I.'s alter-ego. But I think this is an obvious point given the shared tattoo. Plus that ending - can we really trust H.I. in his telling of the story?

The film just ends up revolving around this family notion and possibly the stigmas families may face. Why is it that Ed and H.I. can't have a single child, but a famous, rich man can? And in fact, he has five. Yet he doesn't know their names... I'm also not sure why Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care is so prominent in the film. The only thing I can think of is that it pokes fun at these people reading the book since Dr. Spock did mention famously to, "Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do." Yet the characters in the book refer to it as the "instructions". The book ends up basically destroyed in the end, but still there. So maybe the Coen brothers pointed to it as saying that you have to trust yourself in handling a child ("Trust yourself to do the things that only you know best" - thank you, Bob Dylan!)? I'm not sure. I'm sure there are clues laying around to understand why, but I haven't analysed it enough to know. And other things, well, I'd like to leave it up to you to explore (like the baby itself, for example).

While I saw there was a more detailed meaning (the Coen brothers spent months writing the script - no doubt there are some real detailed things going on), I can't say the film's more superficial side was all the best. It was a fun film, with nice little comedy, nice shots, and an interesting way to analyse family, but it was a bit... random. And this was a complaint I think I had with The Big Lebowski if I recall correctly. I don't recall thinking this while watching No Country for Old Men, but even then... I don't know. Maybe that's just their style and, while things might tie in with its more symbolic meaning, the surface is a little too... odd for me to have completely enjoyed it. I would watch the movie again, but it was not a spectacular movie. The Coen brothers have definitely improved. This was their second commercial film together, so they could only go up from where they were. And it did. So while I'd give this one a watch for the little quirkiness it has, don't expect the same level of brilliance they may have shown in other movies. I'd like to take it as a film used to explore script, directing, and camera action.

Was this a messy review? Probably. I'm tired, but I did want to talk about it. So for those who don't like to read too much (why are you here?), Raising Arizona is a nice piece of cinema identifying the ideas around family, but definitely not the best of the Coen brothers' films.